(1.) This petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the XIX Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, in HRC.No.311/2009.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are, the respondents herein had filed a HRC petition against the petitioner herein, seeking for eviction of the petitioner under Sec. 27(2)(a) and (r) of the Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act' , for brevity), in HRC No. 311/2009. It was the case of the respondents that the petition schedule property was required for the purpose of the fourth respondent who is running a business of ladies-fashion items. On service of notice, the petitioner had entered appearance and contested the petition. The court below, after analyzing the evidence on record, allowed the petition directing the petitioner herein to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule property to the respondents within four months, besides directing the petitioner herein, to pay arrears of rent from Sept., 2008 till the date of passing of the order, amounting to Rs. 9,080.00. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court in this revision petition.
(3.) The learned counsel Shri. T. Mohandas Shetty appearing for the petitioner, assailing the impugned judgment and order would contend that the court below had grossly erred in allowing the petition, in the absence of proof of the fourth respondent requiring the petition schedule premises to start his business. Further, that the respondents have not established their requirement of bona fide use and occupation for which the eviction of the petitioners was sought for. Mere desire of starting a business would not be construed as the need or the necessity of the respondents for the bona fide use and occupation. This material aspect was not properly appreciated by the court below while passing the impugned judgment and order.